If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Theoretical astrophysics institutes do not have gravitational theories of their own. Theoretical astrophysicists in general work on whatever they like.

Any actual examples? List theoretical astrophysics institutes that do not allow their researchers to work on new gravitational theories that are not of their own. List the cases of theoretical astrophysics institutes not "cooperating" with external researchers.

Theoretical astrophysics institutes do not have gravitational theories of their own. Theoretical astrophysicists in general work on whatever they like.

Any actual examples? List theoretical astrophysics institutes that do not allow their researchers to work on new gravitational theories that are not of their own. List the cases of theoretical astrophysics institutes not "cooperating" with external researchers.

The following institutes do not return their calls even to honest taxpayers:

I heard via Quora that theoretical astrophysics institutes aren't interested into new gravitational theories that are not of their own. Is that true?

If so this explains their non-cooperative behavior with external researchers. I think this is quite inefficient overall way to do research.

I think that's very wrong. I work for an institute that has labs doing theoretical astrophysics, and researchers there invite people from the outside quite frequently to talk about their new theories (things like quantum gravity, for example, which the lab in question might not be doing). They are interested in knowing what other people are working on, because it might give them new ideas as well.

I think that's very wrong. I work for an institute that has labs doing theoretical astrophysics, and researchers there invite people from the outside quite frequently to talk about their new theories (things like quantum gravity, for example, which the lab in question might not be doing). They are interested in knowing what other people are working on, because it might give them new ideas as well.

Our taxdollars are supposed to be serving the citizen and not the other way around.

Excepting those tasked with providing individualized services to citizens (e.g.; passport offices) agencies are usually responsible to the citizenry as a whole and not to the particular desires of any one citizen. If they had to answer to the ad hoc demands of every John and Jane Q. Public, they could soon find their personnel over-tasked and their budgets depleted.

How do they know my work is invalid if they haven't tested it?

The burden is on you to demonstrate its validity. They aren't responsible for figuring it out for you.

It is nothing about testing ideas from random phone callers.
People who want to inform scientists about valid ideas publish those ideas in scientific journals. So scientists generally ignore unsolicited calls under the assumption that it is a crank calling. Institutes protect their researchers from having their time wasted from unsolicited calls under the assumption that it is a crank calling.

You skipped my question:
Any actual examples? List theoretical astrophysics institutes that do not allow their researchers to work on new gravitational theories that are not of their own. List the cases of theoretical astrophysics institutes not "cooperating" with external researchers.

So scientists generally ignore unsolicited calls under the assumption that it is a crank calling. Institutes protect their researchers from having their time wasted from unsolicited calls under the assumption that it is a crank calling.

I didn't know cranks was such a problem. That's unfortunate because my work is extremely simple to review for a mathematician.

I didn't know cranks was such a problem. That's unfortunate because my work is extremely simple to review for a mathematician.

Here is an example from 1983. (http://web.mst.edu/~lmhall/WhatToDoW...ectorComes.pdf). Also I have to be honest and somewhat blunt, considering your posting history at this forum I'm not confident of your ability to evaluate the worth of your contributions to physics.

Examples of what exactly?

I'm not Reality Check but but I assume the question was the next part in the quote that you manually removed from your post.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Any actual examples? List theoretical astrophysics institutes that do not allow their researchers to work on new gravitational theories that are not of their own. List the cases of theoretical astrophysics institutes not "cooperating" with external researchers.

You seem to have the same misconception that I see in a lot of ATMers: that scientists are just waiting around for someone to give them a new idea so they can get to work to prove or disprove it. That is completely opposite of reality. Virtually all scientists that I've known have plenty of ideas. What they lack is the time and resources to investigate all of them.

Here is an example from 1983. (http://web.mst.edu/~lmhall/WhatToDoW...ectorComes.pdf). Also I have to be honest and somewhat blunt, considering your posting history at this forum I'm not confident of your ability to evaluate the worth of your contributions to physics.

My final manuscript is much different than my posts here and it was reviewed / written by a PhD in physics I hired.

I'm not Reality Check but but I assume the question was the next part in the quote that you manually removed from your post.

You seem to have the same misconception that I see in a lot of ATMers: that scientists are just waiting around for someone to give them a new idea so they can get to work to prove or disprove it. That is completely opposite of reality. Virtually all scientists that I've known have plenty of ideas. What they lack is the time and resources to investigate all of them.

I understand there are too many cranks and to be fair we all need to be eliminated from the map. As a result it's now impossible to suggest new gravitational theories as simple as they can be.

It isn't impossible to suggest new theories but you have to do all the advance work, like get the degree , get the position, write the grants, get the money, etc.

I understand. Let's put the cards on the table:

1)
- it took me 7 years to write the theory
- going back to school will take me another 10 years
- I know writing grants isn't easy (50+ pages) and will take me another 7 years to write correctly
- I am currently 40 years old

Thus at 57 years old I should be ready to write a grant and hope it'll be accepted.

2)
Forget about astrophysics and work on my private computer science company. If it is successful then I could finance the experiment myself.

Ok thanks again for your help, I really appreciate. It is perfectly clear!

I found the response from the Astrophysics Journal to be very kind. I don't think they always give feedback on manuscripts they receive.

I have a suggestion for you: if the device you want to use is light and easy to make, then there could possibly be a way to get your experiment done without going through the hassle of getting an advanced degree and what not. If you can articulate it in a sort of fun way, like "there is this strange idea, and this experiment would disprove it easily," and then enter into some kind of citizen science type competition. Like sometimes they give chances to high school students to have experiments done in space, so something like that. Then it wouldn't require all the complicated grant paperwork and stuff like that.

I found the response from the Astrophysics Journal to be very kind. I don't think they always give feedback on manuscripts they receive.

Yes they were indeed nice. I polluted my reputation with Physical Review D by sending them unprofessional versions of the manuscript but my one and only submission to the APJ was convincing.

I have a suggestion for you: if the device you want to use is light and easy to make, then there could possibly be a way to get your experiment done without going through the hassle of getting an advanced degree and what not. If you can articulate it in a sort of fun way, like "there is this strange idea, and this experiment would disprove it easily," and then enter into some kind of citizen science type competition. Like sometimes they give chances to high school students to have experiments done in space, so something like that. Then it wouldn't require all the complicated grant paperwork and stuff like that.

I didn't know cranks was such a problem. That's unfortunate because my work is extremely simple to review for a mathematician.

Because I was able to remain polite, I was once the "designated person" at the engineering company where I worked who had to answer telephone calls and letters from "members of the public" who thought they had a breakthrough idea. They were all completely insane ideas. I gave up trying to explain why they wouldn't work (they didn't care) and just told them we were not interested.

This is a minor problem in engineering and, I suspect, in most areas of science. For physicists, it is (potentially) a major problem. The only way to avoid being dragged into huge time-wasting discussions is to just ignore these callers and emailers. I follow a few scientists on Twitter and all of them have described problems with cranks trying to contact them. One of them had to set up an automated bot to block Twitter accounts because he was getting so much abuse.

I am not the least bit concerned that this approach will mean that a genuine breakthrough might be missed. The chances of a random member of the public coming up with an important result in astrophysics are almost exactly zero.

1)
- it took me 7 years to write the theory
- going back to school will take me another 10 years
- I know writing grants isn't easy (50+ pages) and will take me another 7 years to write correctly
- I am currently 40 years old

Thus at 57 years old I should be ready to write a grant and hope it'll be accepted.

2)
Forget about astrophysics and work on my private computer science company. If it is successful then I could finance the experiment myself.

Ok thanks again for your help, I really appreciate. It is perfectly clear!

You can work on your theory at the same time as going to school. I come from an observational viewpoint but to collect data you can do that over the school year and/or during the summer if you have supervisor who is that field or likes your idea. On the theory side of things you have to start somewhere you can work on it in a similar way. If you plan to completely retire 40 is could be to old but in academic circles people usually continue to work after that, it is not like you are lifting heavy objects and worn away your body.

I am not the least bit concerned that this approach will mean that a genuine breakthrough might be missed. The chances of a random member of the public coming up with an important result in astrophysics are almost exactly zero.

Unfortunately that statement perfectly captures the public perception of people who call themselves scientists. To rephrase, "It is impossible for anyone outside our closed community to have an idea of any importance." or "We're better than everyone else." Some might call them elitists.

If philippeb8's idea is as simple as he claims it is, I would not be surprised if lots of physicists have thought of it independently, vetted it properly and then justifiably dismissed it as either trivial or fundamentally flawed.

Unfortunately that statement perfectly captures the public perception of people who call themselves scientists. To rephrase, "It is impossible for anyone outside our closed community to have an idea of any importance." or "We're better than everyone else." Some might call them elitists.

Well said, mkline55. The "system" does not account for the highly likely fact that SR might be fundamentally flawed. Furthermore GR has a 50% chance of being wrong because of quantum mechanics, which is quite high.

Also all these Nobel and Breakthrough prizes are indirectly funded by the taxpayers but there is no way for them to participate because of all the politics involved (your idea needs to be published on arxiv.org or inspirehep.net beforehand, sorting out the individuals with no publishing experience).

If philippeb8's idea is as simple as he claims it is, I would not be surprised if lots of physicists have thought of it independently, vetted it properly and then justifiably dismissed it as either trivial or fundamentally flawed.

Surprisingly no one have thought about it which is why it was pre-approved by NASA, assuming NASA is not conspiring.